Speaker of the House Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, holds a media availability for reporters, who asked questions about the proposed same-sex marriage ban amendment on Thursday. / Charlie Nye/The Star

Written by

The proposed amendment

Here is the wording of House Joint Resolution 3, which includes what would be in an Indiana constitutional amendment: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

More

ADVERTISEMENT

Who knew, in 2011, when the Indiana General Assembly voted by overwhelming majorities — 4-to-1 margin in the Senate, nearly 3-to-1 in the House — that lawmakers would feel compelled to qualify what they’re thinking as they look to amend the constitution to include the state’s ban on same-sex marriage?

But it’s 2014. Three years later, lawmakers who rode a marriage amendment around the first turn with virtually no expectation of defeat now see the field gaining — if not already passing them. And they’ve been doing all they can to soften the personal and political responsibility of a question that they innocently — and conveniently — say should be a matter for the voters.

So on Thursday, with victory less assured, they wanted Hoosiers to know one thing, by way of explanation:

Now be it resolved, here’s what we really meant: Some of our best friends are gay ...

The proposed marriage amendment was filed Thursday morning. (The proposal has been rechristened House Joint Resolution 3 for the 2014 session, instead of House Joint Resolution 6. Sponsors in the Indiana House said the new name was a matter of the order it was filed. But considering the number of yard signs, shirts and literature pushing to “Nix Six,” it was a procedural move with strategic benefits, unintended or not.) If HJR-3 makes it through the House and Senate — the second step in a three-step constitutional process — the question heads to the voters in November for a final say.

That much was promised.

But if it wasn’t clear before that HJR-3 is on shaky ground, House Bill 1153 was 2½ pages of stammering proof that the more you have to explain, the weaker your premise.

And that’s no position to leave a two-sentence constitutional amendment.

HB 1153 attempts to parse the proposed marriage question into what the General Assembly intends the constitutional amendment to be and what it doesn’t intend it to be.

(Page 2 of 2)

Intended: Reaffirm Indiana’s existing law on marriage, which limits the definition to one between one man and one woman.

Not intended, according to HB 1153: To limit health benefits offered by private or public employers, to stop cities from adopting equal opportunity ordinances, to block anyone from terms of a will or power of attorney, or to affect Indiana’s domestic violence laws.

General Assembly leaders, including House Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate President David Long, said they stood by the addendum to the marriage amendment, seemingly persuading themselves that they’d given themselves a constitutional out from HJR-3’s criticized second sentence: “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

(Then again, Bosma famously offered this gem during a different fight in January 2012: “It’s not our job here to determine the constitutionality of something before we vote on it.”)

“I can’t imagine what they think they’re doing,” said Will McLauchlan, a political science professor at Purdue University who specializes in constitutional law. “I suspect they’re trying to deflect and assuage the concerns of many people about what those words in the proposed amendment are intended to do. That’s not going to work.”

McLauchlan said there could be a hope that a companion bill could give guidance about legislative intent to judges if and when lawsuits are filed. But hope doesn’t nail down a constitutional amendment.

“An amendment stands on its own if it’s put in the constitution. And that’s up to the courts to interpret later in any way they wish to do,” McLauchlan said. “What they’re trying to do, obviously, is something you don’t do with a constitutional amendment.”

Wait, was that the sound of the judicial branch laughing?

“The judges are probably doing something,” he said. “What, I can’t say. I can say, that bill isn’t going to fly.”

In November, I asked state Sen. Ron Alting, a Lafayette Republican who voted for HJR-6 in 2011, what he’d do if he could with a marriage amendment that seemed to be slipping out of the win column and into a no-win, emotional abyss of nastiness through November. His answer: “I wish it would go away.”

Bosma and Long could have gone that route. Should have gone that route. Still could go that route. Instead, they seem content to keep explaining — to take some of the sting out it, as Long told reporters Thursday.

But this isn’t the same as explaining away a botched school assignment. This is the state constitution.

How do you explain an amendment that rides up with a sidecar of qualifications and meant-to-says?